Troy Farrell wrote:
Hash: SHA1

Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
|> Troy Farrell wrote:
|> -1 on alternative 4.  This lurker is with Tres.  This is a Z3
|> challenge.  I wonder how many part-time Zope 2 admins will be happy
|> about making this change and having to retest code they've inherited
|> from some contract developer.
| Why would they switch to Zope 2.8 if not for the component architecture?
| So, if you just "inherited" some code for maintainance, this will
| unlikely break your program. In fact, it won't even break your program
| when the rename is effective, since we'll keep a facade Zope package
| around.

Philipp, not everyone follows well-planned, ideal upgrade practices.

There's only so much we can do for people who don't.

upgrades come when they can be had, and even more frequently when there is a
security hole and the fix is only available for the latest version or two. I'm
remembering this:

This was the occasion for my upgrade to 2.7, which proved to be a learning
experience.  Fortunately, I used a test instance for my upgrade :)

I think your main point is people who skip updates. Perhaps, I should have suggested keeping the legacy Zope package longer?

Deprecation errors are nice, but usually admins take one of two

Warning, not errors

approaches to
them, neither of which is ideal:
1) Ignore them since everything seems to work alright
2) See the apocalypse horsemen headed their direction - this results in

This will cause many a shock when the occasion for upgrade to 2.9 comes around.
~ At 2 A.M.

Would you feel better if we kept the legacy support available longer?

The deprecation warnings are a way for people to find out when somethings


Jim Fulton           mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]       Python Powered!
CTO                  (540) 361-1714  
Zope Corporation

Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists - )

Reply via email to